ADVERTISEMENT

Update on $75M North Endzone Renovation; Capacity may drop below 70,000

Franisdaman

HB King
Nov 3, 2012
101,220
138,150
113
Heaven, Iowa
Iowa still finalizing Kinnick renovation plans
Capacity may dip below 70,000

persbilde

Scott Dochterman

The Gazette


UPDATE from Jun 7, 2016 at 2:19 pm | http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/kinnick-stadium-upgrade-estimate-now-at-75-million-20160607

Cost estimates for Kinnick Stadium’s north end-zone renovation have roughly doubled in the last 10 months, according to a University of Iowa capital projects document.

The 2017 fiscal year report, which was submitted to the state Board of Regents, lists the project’s price tag at $75 million. That’s up from $35-45 million when the athletics department received initial Regents permission last summer.

Original post:

May 23, 2016 at 12:34 pm
| http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/iowa-still-finalizing-kinnick-renovation-20160523


IOWA CITY — Nearly 10 months after receiving Regents permission to plan for a Kinnick Stadium renovation, Iowa Athletics Department officials have yet to shift from the design phase to construction.

“We’re in the planning process. We’re not yet ready to start the construction,” Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta told The Gazette. “We’re still in the process of designing it. At some point then it’s pulling the trigger and getting construction started. We’re not there yet.”

Iowa officials plan to reconstruct Kinnick Stadium’s north end zone bleachers at cost between $35 million and $45 million. The north end zone has tight seating quarters in an area that had not been renovated since the early 1980s. Design plans are wide open with “probably 50 different possibilities,” Barta said.

There will be premium seating, but the ratio of suites, indoor/outdoor club seating and possible patio areas to bleachers remains under discussion.

“There’s certainly going to be the bench seat that we’ve always had,” Barta said. “There are going to some different kind of combinations of club areas. Different levels of cost, so there’s something for everybody in the new north end zone.

“What drives it the most is we need to update restrooms and the concession stands. I think most people realize in today’s world the premium seating options are something that people are attracted to. So we’re trying to have a level that would fit multiple different budgets, not just the highest end suite or the higher end club, but also some things that are attractive that are a price point below that.”

Iowa’s capacity may fall with the renovation. Currently, Kinnick Stadium’s capacity is listed at 70,585. With a 17 percent drop in season ticket sales, Iowa ranked 24th in average attendance last year at 63,142. If the stadium remains at full capacity, Iowa would rank 21st nationally. Kinnick Stadium ranks seventh in size among Big Ten schools.

“It’s going to depend on how many premium suites we have and how that all shakes out,” Barta said. “What I want to do is make sure with whatever concept we come up with, it’s still going to be close to the field like it is now, and that we’ll still be in the top 25 in attendance. But it may be slightly above or slightly below 70,000 depending on how the final design works out.”

Barta added that he doesn’t have a set date for when he plans to take the project back to Regents for final approval. Donations and athletics department proceeds will pay for the project.

“I want to make sure we say when we’re ready, we’re ready,” Barta said. “We’re just not ready to announce anything yet.”

l Comments: (319) 339-3169; scott.dochterman@thegazette.com
 
Last edited:
The entire industry is moving towards more premium seating and less overall capacity. But that doesn't fit most peoples agenda of acting like the Iowa AD, and ONLY the Iowa AD, is out to screw fans.

Except there have been stadium expansions in our own conference. Most notably the one in Lincoln. Nebraska is adding capacity while we are cutting capacity. What image does that portray?

I hope they figure out a way to add the amenities and premium seating they want while still keeping the capacity at 70,000+.
 
The other problem is space. The North Endzone does not meet today's building codes based on slope. It was the issue south endzone had as well, but there was space to make that one go deeper. With the street right there, if they end up flattening it out for code, you have less rows. Also, I believe North Endzone has narrower seats than the rest of the stadium. The renovation will probably standardize the seat size meaning less seats per row.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u
Considering that we almost never sellout anymore - only twice in three years and once during our undefeated season - decreasing capacity doesn't seem like a terrible idea. Especially when it enhances the overall stadium experience and increases program revenue.

I suppose I don't understand the argument against decreasing capacity. Why is that a problem to some of you?
 
Last edited:
New Vikings Stadium capacity: 66,200
New Falcons Stadium: "Approximately" 70,000

I don't get too caught up in seating capacity. Just hope to see Kinnick Stadium full whenever we play ... Having a new North endzone will be worth it ...
 
Right. Oregon's stadium seats 55,000. Baylor built a gorgeous new stadium that seats 45,000. Bigger isn't necessarily better...especially when you don't have the butts to fill the seats.
 
Because...

BIG Lights, BIG Stage, BIG Ten

We aren't in one of those other conferences with puny venues and poor followings. Iowa is in the Big Ten and Big Ten programs have big capacity stadiums and large crowds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK
Because...

BIG Lights, BIG Stage, BIG Ten

We aren't in one of those other conferences with puny venues and poor followings. Iowa is in the Big Ten and Big Ten programs have big capacity stadiums and large crowds.
Unless your name is Minnesota and build a 50,000 seat stadium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_Heater
Minnesota's stadium is expandable. Iowa is looking to go backwards. You tell me.
 
The designers of Iowa Stadium should have had more foresight back in the 1920's when they built the stadium to figure in future development around the stadium and tougher building codes. Iowa isn't looking to downsize. They are looking to modernize a 90 year old stadium (again) and the modernization may or may not decease capacity slightly. The previous 6 stadium improvements all upgraded the capacity from its 53,000 starting point. The initial capacity way back in 1929 was still larger than the goofers brand new digs.
 
Why is capacity decreasing? A few years ago at Kinnick when I entered the stadium I found someone was sitting in my seat, his seat and the seat to his left. I think we need to use airline guidelines and start charging these larger people for the room that they take up.
 
Minnesota's stadium is expandable. Iowa is looking to go backwards. You tell me.

Iowa is smarter than Minnesota. Minnesota can't fill their stadium so they can expand later and not fill even more of their stadium.

Why would we expand when we can only sell out 1 game in a unbeaten season? Seems like this is a pretty smart move to me. Time will tell I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BEAN DOG
Minnesota's stadium is expandable. Iowa is looking to go backwards. You tell me.

I don't think this is that difficult to figure out.

1) The North stands are in need of renovation.
2) Space restrictions and building regulations limit the dimensions of the replacement structure.
3) Today's fans are fatter than the average person in 1980.
4) Wider seats installed in a slightly smaller space = less seating capacity.
5) Renovation costs about $40M; sellouts are infrequent. Design plans to include premium seating.

You can expand in the future if necessary, but not on the North end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franisdaman
People the sellouts stopped, when the fans lost faith in Kirk. Iowa usually sells out or is at near capacity. Short memories you all have.
 
I really don't care at this point what the final attendance number will be. I am way more curious to see what these renderings of the new endzone will look like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkThunder#61
I think Iowa fans r more demanding then back when Fry became head coach. After so many loosing season, Fry's teams made it fun to watch them win once in awhile and even pull an upset. Fans actually stayed for the entire game. The more the Hawks won the more the fans came. By the end of Fry's coaching career, it was expected a better than 500 season plus a bowl game.

After Kirk has taken over expectations have grown with having some pretty good teams. Have an average to below average year and it's unacceptable. It's just the way Iowa fans r these days. The best way to protest is don't show up and have revenue drop. Perhaps then changes will be made. For the most part it works. Iowa got rid of Lick rather fast and Kirk has made some big changes in assistant coaches plus in some of his approach to his coaching beliefs. In order for fans to keep showing up, expectations have to be met no matter how unrealistic they r. I will admit my expectations have grown and I'm more willing to bitch than I did 30-40 yrs. ago. It's fun to support a winner and easy to lose interest when they lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkThunder#61
I think Iowa fans r more demanding then back when Fry became head coach. After so many loosing season, Fry's teams made it fun to watch them win once in awhile and even pull an upset. Fans actually stayed for the entire game. The more the Hawks won the more the fans came. By the end of Fry's coaching career, it was expected a better than 500 season plus a bowl game.

After Kirk has taken over expectations have grown with having some pretty good teams. Have an average to below average year and it's unacceptable. It's just the way Iowa fans r these days. The best way to protest is don't show up and have revenue drop. Perhaps then changes will be made. For the most part it works. Iowa got rid of Lick rather fast and Kirk has made some big changes in assistant coaches plus in some of his approach to his coaching beliefs. In order for fans to keep showing up, expectations have to be met no matter how unrealistic they r. I will admit my expectations have grown and I'm more willing to bitch than I did 30-40 yrs. ago. It's fun to support a winner and easy to lose interest when they lose.

This is not an Iowa phenomenon. It's everywhere.

When I went to Iowa in the 70's, fans went to the games to have fun. Get out of the house on a nice fall day and cheer on the Hawks. There were only a few bowl games, so that was not even part of the equation at Iowa. Games were inexpensive and fun. They were almost never on TV.

Now it's passionate fans and big money. Fans feel ownership to the team and expect more.

Same goes for the stadium. I can watch all the games on my TV in my family room. If I go to a game, it better be worth it. Comfy seats, good food, easy in and out restrooms. And, I need entertainment when the teams aren't on the field running a play. I need music, sports news, whatever.

There is not anything wrong with this. It is just the way it is today. Barta and the people he is working with know this way better than any of us, and they are preparing for the future.

$50 million for an end-zone section of the stadium? Madness, but sensible all at the same time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: soybean and nu2u
Because those "premium" seating areas will raise the revenue even with lower capacity.

The athletic department wants money in their hands more than they want people in the stadium.

I can't find a link that lists Iowa's average home attendance over the last 20 or so years; when was the last time Iowa averaged a sell out at Kinnick?

I am afraid the trend is downward when it comes to people attending games; and its an issue nation wide; too many people want to stay at home, watching on the HD TV, having a bathroom near by and a beer and snacks just steps away
 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u
The other problem is space. The North Endzone does not meet today's building codes based on slope. It was the issue south endzone had as well, but there was space to make that one go deeper. With the street right there, if they end up flattening it out for code, you have less rows. Also, I believe North Endzone has narrower seats than the rest of the stadium. The renovation will probably standardize the seat size meaning less seats per row.

I don't understand the "slope" issue; has anyone been to Target Field? the slope issue did not apply there. The seating in right field is about as steep as you can get and they had to make it that way because they were literally shoe honing the stadium right up next to a parking garage
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkThunder#61
Considering that we almost never sellout anymore - only twice in three years and once during our undefeated season - decreasing capacity doesn't seem like a terrible idea. Especially when it enhances the overall stadium experience and increases program revenue.

I suppose I don't understand the argument against decreasing capacity. Why is that a problem to some of you?

good post; 70,000 is a nice number; going under it is "messy" so I hope they can keep it at 70,000;
 
I don't think this is that difficult to figure out.

1) The North stands are in need of renovation.
2) Space restrictions and building regulations limit the dimensions of the replacement structure.
3) Today's fans are fatter than the average person in 1980.
4) Wider seats installed in a slightly smaller space = less seating capacity.
5) Renovation costs about $40M; sellouts are infrequent. Design plans to include premium seating.

You can expand in the future if necessary, but not on the North end.

Nice post.

Isnt it sad that we have to increase the width of the seats because people today are that much wider and fatter than they were in the 1920's?
 
I really don't care at this point what the final attendance number will be. I am way more curious to see what these renderings of the new endzone will look like.

Agreed. I think its taking a while because Barta wants to stay at 70,000 AND have all the nice features, premium seating, etc

Plus, they would have to starting knocking the North endzone down immediately following the last home game and be done by the next home game the following fall

There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle that the architects have to figure out
 
This is not an Iowa phenomenon. It's everywhere.

When I went to Iowa in the 70's, fans went to the games to have fun. Get out of the house on a nice fall day and cheer on the Hawks. There were only a few bowl games, so that was not even part of the equation at Iowa. Games were inexpensive and fun. They were almost never on TV.

Now it's passionate fans and big money. Fans feel ownership to the team and expect more.

Same goes for the stadium. I can watch all the games on my TV in my family room. If I go to a game, it better be worth it. Comfy seats, good food, easy in and out restrooms. And, I need entertainment when the teams are on the field running a play. I need music, sports news, whatever.

There is not anything wrong with this. It is just the way it is today. Barta and the people he is working with know this way better than any of us, and they are preparing for the future.

$50 million for an end-zone section of the stadium? Madness, but sensible all at the same time.

Nice post.

And fans of today take pictures and video with their phones and post on social media. That is why Kinnick needs to get up to date on wi-fi, too.
 
Let's get one easy, simple thing right to start this discussion. If we lose X amount of seats, yet it kept it over 70,000 there would be no problem, right? It, in fact, isn't the number of lost seats at issue, it is the "clean" 70,000 number that is important. Right?
 
Let's get one easy, simple thing right to start this discussion. If we lose X amount of seats, yet it kept it over 70,000 there would be no problem, right? It, in fact, isn't the number of lost seats at issue, it is the "clean" 70,000 number that is important. Right?
Might as well...
 
Let's get one easy, simple thing right to start this discussion. If we lose X amount of seats, yet it kept it over 70,000 there would be no problem, right? It, in fact, isn't the number of lost seats at issue, it is the "clean" 70,000 number that is important. Right?

I'm hoping the new capacity is 69,666..... "Satan's Den".
 
I guess what I'm saying is that this isn't about losing 566 seats and hitting 69,999, this is about the arbitrary, but very clean 70,000 threshold, right? If we were at 70,999 and lost 566, no one would care.

I think that is important, because much of what is being argued here is that Iowa has the fans, will fill the seats, is in the Big Ten, etc. etc. in order to show losing seats is bad, but I don't think they are talking about losing enough seats to make that really matter.

It will still be clearly more capacity than:
Jack Trice 61,500
Ryan Field 50,000
Memorial Stadium (Ill) 63,000
TCF Bank 50,000
Ross Ade 56,000
Rutgers 52,000
Memorial (IU) 53,500
Maryland 54,000

And it will still be clearly less than:
Camp Randall 80,000
Memorial Stadium (NU) 90,000
OSU/Mich/PSU 100,000+

The only one really comparable is Spartan Stadium at 75,000, and I don't think anyone is talking about trying to get over that mark, for whatever that would even be worth. Spartans averaged 74,000 fans last year and have averaged over 73,000 for half this decade. Also, even competing with them could be short-sighted as they have the structure to bump to 90,000 if they ever choose to, according to this: http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/11/michigan_state_preliminarily_p.html

So who is Iowa trying to one-up? They are bigger and better than all of the teams you would expect and smaller than the ones you'd expect, with only the Spartans being the exception, yet the Spartans have had sustained success for a long period of time now and should be bigger/better than Iowa.

According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity, the only teams that Iowa is at risk of dropping under are NFL teams.

70,000 is an arbitrary threshold that the administration shouldn't be concerned about. It should only be concerned about cost/value and how it benefits attendance. If Iowa can go 75,000 and sustain it, sure great awesome do it, it doesn't sound like it is in the works. I'll be there with my family and ~70,000 other people regardless.
 
Welcome to the Era of very nice big screen HD TV's, Nice surround sound stereo's and virtually every game on TV. While nothing beats the actual game day experience in the stadium, The times they are a changin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u
Considering that we almost never sellout anymore - only twice in three years and once during our undefeated season - decreasing capacity doesn't seem like a terrible idea. Especially when it enhances the overall stadium experience and increases program revenue.

I suppose I don't understand the argument against decreasing capacity. Why is that a problem to some of you?

This.

I have no clue why it is such a big deal to be over 70k. 60something with a better fan experience and more comfortable seating is preferable to cramming folks in to be over 70k.
 
If ISU eventually drops out of a power conference, 10 to 20 years later, Iowa's gonna have a higher ticket demand.
 
People the sellouts stopped, when the fans lost faith in Kirk. Iowa usually sells out or is at near capacity. Short memories you all have.
I don't think that is phrased correctly. It is more like the sellouts stopped when the young turds among the fans decided they were entitled to more than they were getting.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT